This information is produced and provided by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The information in this topic may have changed since it was written. For the most current information, contact the National Cancer Institute via the Internet web site at http://cancer.gov or call 1-800-4-CANCER.

General Information About Endometrial Cancer

Cancer of the endometrium is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States and accounts for 6% of all cancers in women. The majority of cases are diagnosed at an early stage and are amenable to treatment with surgery alone. However, patients with pathologic features predictive of a high rate of relapse and patients with extrauterine spread at diagnosis have a high rate of relapse despite adjuvant therapy.

Incidence and Mortality

Estimated new cases and deaths from cancer of the uterine corpus, which includes the endometrium, in the United States in 2018:[1]

New cases: 63,230.

Deaths: 11,350.

Endometrial cancer is usually diagnosed and treated at an early stage. Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in patients with endometrial cancer because of the related metabolic risk factors.[2]

Anatomy

The endometrium is the inner lining of the uterus and has both functional and basal layers. The functional layer is hormonally sensitive and is shed in a cyclical pattern during menstruation in reproductive-age women. Both estrogen and progesterone are necessary to maintain a normal endometrial lining. However, factors that lead to an excess of estrogen, including obesity and anovulation, lead to an increase in the deposition of the endometrial lining. These changes may lead to endometrial hyperplasia, and, in some cases, endometrial cancer. Whatever the cause, a thickened lining will lead to sloughing of the endometrial tissue through the endometrial canal and into the vagina. As a result, heavy menstrual bleeding or bleeding after menopause are often the initial signs of endometrial cancer. This symptom tends to happen early in the disease course, allowing for identification of the disease at an early stage for most women.

Anatomy of the female reproductive system.

Risk Factors

Increasing age is the most important risk factor for most cancers. Other risk factors for endometrial cancer include the following:

Refer to the PDQ summary on Endometrial Cancer Prevention for more information.

Prolonged, unopposed estrogen exposure has been associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer.[9,32] However, combined estrogen and progesterone therapy prevents the increase in risk of endometrial cancer associated with unopposed estrogen use.[33,34]

Tamoxifen, which is used for both the treatment and prevention of breast cancer (NSABP-B-14), is associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer related to the estrogenic effect of tamoxifen on the endometrium.[15,35] It is important that patients who are receiving tamoxifen and experiencing abnormal uterine bleeding have follow-up examinations and biopsy of the endometrial lining. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a black box warning that includes data about the increase in uterine malignancies associated with tamoxifen use. (Refer to the Lynch Syndrome (LS) section in the PDQ summary on Genetics of Breast and Gynecologic Cancers for more information about risk factors for LS-associated endometrial cancer.)

Clinical Features

Irregular vaginal bleeding is the most common presenting sign of endometrial cancer. It generally occurs early in the disease process, and is the reason why most patients are diagnosed with highly curable stage I endometrial cancer.

Diagnostic Evaluation

The following procedures may be used to detect endometrial cancer:

Transvaginal ultrasound.

Endometrial biopsy.

Pelvic exam.

Dilatation and curettage (D&C).

Hysteroscopy.

To definitively diagnose endometrial cancer, a procedure that directly samples the endometrial tissue is necessary.

The Pap smear is not a reliable screening procedure for the detection of endometrial cancer, even though a retrospective study found a strong correlation between positive cervical cytology and high-risk endometrial disease (i.e., high-grade tumor and deep myometrial invasion).[36] A prospective study found a statistically significant association between malignant cytology and increased risk of nodal disease.[37]

Prognostic Factors

Prognostic factors for endometrial cancer include the following:

Tumor stage and grade (including extrauterine nodal spread).

Hormone receptor status.

Tumor stage and grade (including extrauterine nodal spread)

The following table highlights the risk of nodal metastasis based on findings at the time of staging surgery:[38]

A Gynecologic Oncology Group study related surgical-pathologic parameters and postoperative treatment to recurrence-free interval and recurrence site. Grade 3 histology and deep myometrial invasion in patients without extrauterine spread were the greatest determinants of recurrence. In this study, the frequency of recurrence was greatly increased with the following:[39,40]

Positive pelvic nodes.

Adnexal metastasis.

Positive peritoneal cytology.

Capillary space involvement.

Involvement of the isthmus or cervix.

Positive periaortic nodes (includes all grades and depth of invasion). Of the cases with aortic node metastases, 98% were in patients with positive pelvic nodes, intra-abdominal metastases, or tumor invasion of the outer 33% of the myometrium.

When the only evidence of extrauterine spread is positive peritoneal cytology, the influence on outcome is unclear. The value of therapy directed at this cytologic finding is not well founded,[41,42,43,44,45,46] and some data are contradictory.[47] Although the collection of cytology specimens is still suggested, a positive result does not upstage the cancer. Other extrauterine disease must be present before additional postoperative therapy is considered.

Involvement of the capillary-lymphatic space on histopathologic examination correlates with extrauterine and nodal spread of tumor.[48]

Hormone receptor status

Progesterone and estrogen receptors, assessed either by biochemical or immunohistochemical methods, are included, when possible, in the evaluation of patients with stage I and stage II cancer.[49,50,51]

One report found progesterone receptor levels to be the single most important prognostic indicator of 3-year survival in clinical stages I and II disease. Patients with progesterone receptor levels above 100 had a 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) of 93%, compared with a 36% DFS for a level below 100. After adjusting for progesterone receptor levels, only cervical involvement and peritoneal cytology were significant prognostic variables.[52]

Other reports confirm the importance of hormone receptor status as an independent prognostic factor.[53] Additionally, immunohistochemical staining of paraffin-embedded tissue for both estrogen and progesterone receptors has been shown to correlate with Féderation Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique (FIGO) grade and survival.[49,50,51]

Other prognostic factors

Other factors predictive of poor prognosis include the following:[51,54,55]

A high S-phase fraction.

Aneuploidy.

Absence of PTEN.

PIK3CA mutation status.

p53 mutation status.

Her-2/neu overexpression.

Oncogene expression (e.g., overexpression of the Her-2/neu oncogene has been associated with a poor overall prognosis).

Mixed, defined as two carcinomatous cell types, with the smaller component making up at least 10% of the total (10%).

Uterine papillary serous (<10%).

Clear cell (4%) is histologically similar to those noted in the ovary and the fallopian tube. The prognosis for clear cell tumors is worse.[1]

Carcinosarcoma (3%), also known as malignant mixed mesodermal tumor, has both carcinomatous and sarcomatous elements. This tumor was historically categorized as a subtype of uterine sarcomas; however, recent evidence points to its origin as an adenocarcinoma that has undergone differentiation into the sarcomatous elements.

Mucinous (1%).

Squamous cell (<1%).

Undifferentiated (<1%).

Molecular Subgroups

PTEN mutations are more common in type 1 endometrial cancers; p53 and Her-2/neu overexpression are more common in type 2 endometrial cancers, although some overlap exists.

The Cancer Genome Atlas's full genetic display of hundreds of endometrial cancers identified four subtypes to further characterize endometrial cancers:[3]

These categories can be used to stratify patients into low- and high-risk prognostic categories. A modification of The Cancer Genome Atlas methods into more accessible tests was also successful in discriminating cancers into relevant prognostic categories. However, a combination of previously known risk factors with the genetic data was the most effective at determining prognostic categories.[4]

Stage Information for Endometrial Cancer

The pattern of endometrial cancer spread is partially dependent on the degree of cellular differentiation. Well-differentiated tumors tend to limit their spread to the surface of the endometrium; myometrial invasion is less common. Myometrial invasion occurs much more frequently in patients with poorly differentiated tumors and is frequently a harbinger of lymph node involvement and distant metastases.[1,2]

Metastatic spread occurs in a characteristic pattern. Regional spread to the pelvic and periaortic nodes is common. Distant metastasis most commonly involves the following sites:

Lungs.

Inguinal and supraclavicular nodes.

Liver.

Bones.

Brain.

Vagina.

FIGO Staging

The Féderation Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique (FIGO) and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) have both designated staging systems for endometrial cancer. The FIGO system is the most commonly used staging system for endometrial cancer.[3,4]

FIGO stages I to IV are further subdivided by the histologic grade (G) of the tumor, for example, stage IB G2. Carcinosarcomas, which had previously been designated as sarcomas, are now considered poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas; as such, they are included in this system.[4]

Treatment Option Overview for Endometrial Cancer

The degree of tumor differentiation has an important effect on the natural history of this disease and on treatment selection.

Patients with endometrial cancer who have localized disease are usually cured. Best results are obtained with one of two standard treatments:

Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy (when deep invasion of the myometrial muscle [more than 50% of the myometrium] or grade 3 tumor with myometrial invasion is present).

Patients with regional and distant metastases are rarely cured, although they are occasionally responsive to standard hormone therapy.

Progestational agents have been evaluated as adjuvant therapy in several randomized trials; a meta-analysis by the Cochrane group confirms no clinical benefit to adjuvant progestogens in clinical stage I disease.[1][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

The treatment options for each stage of endometrial cancer are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Treatment Options for Endometrial Cancer

Stage (FIGO Staging Definitions)

Treatment Options

FIGO = Féderation Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique.

Stage I and stage II endometrial cancer

Grades 1 and 2

Surgery with or without lymph node sampling

Postoperative vaginal brachytherapy

Radiation therapy alone

Grade 3 (includes serous, clear cell, and carcinosarcoma)

Surgery

Postoperative chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy

Stage III, stage IV, and recurrent endometrial cancer

Operable disease

Surgery followed by chemotherapy or radiation therapy

Inoperable disease

Chemotherapy and radiation therapy

Inoperable disease in which the patient is not a candidate for radiation therapy

Stage I and Stage II Endometrial Cancer Treatment

Treatment of stage I and stage II endometrial cancer depends on the grade and histologic type.

In the current Féderation Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique (FIGO) staging system, stage II describes tumor that invades the cervical stroma; this is equivalent to the prior stage IIB. Almost all randomized trials for early-stage cancer excluded stage IIB patients. As a result, there is a paucity of quality data on which to base clinical decisions for stage II patients.

Low-risk histology:

Grades 1 and 2 tumors are considered low-risk unless they are serous or clear cell subtype.

Standard treatment for patients with low-risk histologic subtypes of stage I endometrial cancer include the following:

Patients with serous or clear cell histologies have higher rates of recurrence than do patients with other stage I or stage II endometrioid carcinomas. The outcomes in institutional case series that utilize a regimen of adjuvant carboplatin plus paclitaxel, occasionally including radiation therapy for this histologic subtype, have been published and form the basis of management guidelines.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]

Carcinosarcomas have been evaluated in clinical trials both separately and with other sarcomas because of their prior designation in this group. In a nonrandomized Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) study of patients with stage I or II carcinosarcomas, patients who underwent pelvic radiation therapy had a significant reduction in recurrences within the radiation treatment field but no improvement in survival.[10] One nonrandomized study that predominantly included patients with carcinosarcomas appeared to show benefit for adjuvant therapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin.[11]

Surgery

If the uterine cervix is involved, options include one or more of the following:

Standard hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy followed by adjuvant radiation therapy.

Radical hysterectomy.

Pelvic and periaortic lymph node dissection.

Single-institution reviews suggest that radical hysterectomy is more beneficial than standard hysterectomy in cases of cervical involvement of the tumor.[12,13,14]

Surgery with or without lymph node sampling

The following table highlights the risk of nodal metastasis based on findings at the time of staging surgery:[15]

For patients in Group A, lymph node dissection has limited utility. Conversely, full pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection is important forpatients in Group C, given the likelihood of positive findings. The difficulty lies in determining how to manage patients in Group B.

There are several accepted surgical approaches for patients with presumed stage I endometrial cancer, with intermediate risk for lymphatic spread.

Both retrospective and prospective data supports stratifying patients with presumed stage I endometrial cancer into two groups based on the following characteristics:

Low risk: well-differentiated or moderately differentiated tumor and/or depth of myometrial invasion is less than 50% and/or tumor is smaller than 2 cm.

High risk: poorly differentiated tumor and/or depth of myometrial invasion is 50% or more and/or tumor is 2 cm or larger.

Evidence (lymph node dissection):

In these studies, patients with low-risk cancer had a sufficiently low risk of lymph node metastasis such that lymph node sampling could be omitted. For patients meeting high-risk criteria, a full pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection was suggested, given patterns of lymphatic spread.[16,17]

An alternative strategy is the use of sentinel lymph node dissection in patients with presumed stage I endometrial cancer.[18] Although this strategy has been widely adopted at various academic centers, a prospective multicenter trial to determine the false-negative rate for this protocol is lacking. For cases in which isolated tumor cells are identified using the sentinel lymph node approach, it is unclear whether treatment is necessary.

In patients with high-risk histology (serous, clear cell, carcinosarcoma, or undifferentiated tumors), hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection is the standard.

Laparotomy has been the standard surgical approach; however, laparoscopy is now favored, given the improvement in patients' postoperative recovery without significant impact on oncologic outcomes.

For patients with early-stage endometrial cancer, several randomized trials have compared total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) with the standard open procedure, total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). Feasibility of the laparoscopic approach has been confirmed, but this approach is associated with a longer operative time.[15,19,20] TLH has an improved [15,19] or similar [20] adverse event profile and a shorter hospital stay [15,19,20] than does TAH.

TLH is associated with less pain and quicker resumption of daily activities,[20,21] although one study found that most of the gains in quality of life favoring laparoscopy at the 6-week postsurgical period were no longer significant at 6 months.[20,21]

A GOG trial (GOG-LAP2) included 2,616 patients with clinical stages I to IIA disease and randomly assigned them in a 2:1 ratio to comprehensive surgical staging via laparoscopy or laparotomy.[22][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

Time to recurrence was the primary endpoint, with noninferiority defined as a difference in recurrence rate of less than 5.3% between the two groups at 3 years.

The recurrence rate at 3 years was 10.24% for patients in the laparotomy arm and 11.39% for patients in the laparoscopy arm, with an estimated difference between groups of 1.14% (90% lower bound, -1.278; 95% upper bound, 3.996).

Although this difference was lower than the prespecified limit, the statistical requirements for noninferiority were not met because of fewer-than-expected recurrences in both groups.

The overall survival (OS) at 5 years was 89.8% in both groups.

A Cochrane review of the use of laparoscopic staging included four randomized controlled trials that reported OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Ninety percent of the patients were from the GOG-LAP2 trial.[23][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

Overall, laparoscopy and laparotomy were associated with similar OS and PFS rates.

Future analyses may determine whether there are subgroups of patients for whom there is a clinically significant decrement when laparoscopic staging is utilized.[22][Level of evidence: 1iiDiii]

Postoperative vaginal brachytherapy

While adjuvant radiation therapy will reduce the incidence of local and regional recurrence, improved survival has not been proven, and toxic effects are worse with radiation therapy.[24,25,26,27,28] Vaginal cuff brachytherapy is associated with less radiation-related morbidity than is external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and has been shown to be equivalent to EBRT in the short term for patients with stage I disease.[29] However, long-term follow up of a randomized trial comparing EBRT plus vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) to VBT alone found decreased OS and increased toxicity in the EBRT plus VBT arm.[30]

Evidence (VBT):

Results of two randomized trials that used adjuvant radiation therapy in patients with stage I disease did not show improved survival but did show reduced locoregional recurrence (3%-4% in the radiation therapy group vs. 12%-14% in the control group after median follow-up of 5-6 years; P < .001), with an increase in side effects.[27,31,32][Level of evidence: 1iiDii]

Results of a study by the Danish Endometrial Cancer Group suggest that the absence of radiation therapy does not improve the survival of patients with stage I intermediate-risk disease (grades 1 and 2 with >50% myometrial invasion or grade 3 with <50% myometrial invasion).[33]

The PORTEC-2 (NCT00411138) trial randomly assigned patients with stage I endometrial cancer who did not undergo lymph node dissection to undergo VBT or EBRT, with prevention of vaginal recurrence as the primary outcome.[29,34][Level of evidence: 1iA]

At 5 years, there was no difference in the rates of vaginal recurrence, locoregional recurrence, PFS, or OS (84.8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 79.3-90.3] for VBT vs. 79.6% [95% CI, 71.2-88.0] for EBRT; P = .57).

There were significantly fewer gastrointestinal toxic effects and improved quality of life in the VBT group, making VBT the preferred option for adjuvant treatment of patients with stage I disease.

The Norwegian Radium Hospital trial randomly assigned treatment to 568 patients with clinical stage I endometrial cancer between the 1968 and 1974 (before FIGO surgical staging was initiated).[30][Level of evidence: 1iiA] After hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either EBRT and VBT or VBT alone.

An updated report presenting over 20 years of follow-up data showed no difference in OS between the treatment groups. Median OS was 20.5 years in the EBRT/VBT group and 20.48 in the VBT-alone group (P = .186). In all women, there was an increased risk of secondary cancers after EBRT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.0).

A post-hoc subset analysis of women younger than 60 years at the time of trial registration showed increased mortality in the EBRT arm (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06-1.76). Further, the risk of secondary cancers doubled in this group (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.3-3.15).

Postoperative radiation therapy

If the cervix is clinically uninvolved, but extension to the cervix is noted on postoperative pathology, radiation therapy is considered.[22][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

Radiation therapy alone

Patients who have medical contraindications to surgery may be treated with radiation therapy alone, but cure rates may be lower than those attained with surgery.[35,36,37]

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Stage I and Stage II Endometrial Cancer

The GOG-0249 (NCT00807768) trial compared the combination of adjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel and vaginal cuff brachytherapy versus adjuvant pelvic EBRT in high-risk endometrial cancer patients with stage I or II disease. The study is closed to accrual, and preliminary findings have been presented in abstract form, showing no significant difference between the two treatment arms.

The GOG-0261 (NCT00954174) trial compared paclitaxel and carboplatin with paclitaxel and ifosfamide in patients with newly diagnosed stages I to IV persistent or recurrent uterine, ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cavity cancer.

Current Clinical Trials

Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.

Treatment of patients with stage IV endometrial cancer is dictated by the site of metastatic disease and symptoms related to disease sites.

Surgery followed by chemotherapy or radiation therapy

In general, patients with stage III or stage IV endometrial cancer are treated with surgery, followed by chemotherapy or radiation therapy, or both. Observational studies support maximal cytoreductive surgery for patients with stage IV disease, although these conclusions need to be interpreted with care because of the small number of cases and likely selection bias.[1,2]

For many years, radiation therapy was the standard adjuvant treatment for patients with endometrial cancer. However, several randomized trials have confirmed improved survival when adjuvant chemotherapy is used instead of radiation therapy.

Doxorubicin was historically the most active anticancer agent employed, with useful but temporary responses obtained in as many as 33% of patients with recurrent disease. Paclitaxel, in combination with platinum chemotherapy or as a single agent, also has significant anticancer activity.[3]

Evidence (surgery followed by chemotherapy or radiation therapy):

Several randomized trials by the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) have utilized the known antitumor activity of doxorubicin.[4]

The addition of cisplatin to doxorubicin increased response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) above those of doxorubicin alone but without an effect on overall survival (OS).

A three-drug regimen of doxorubicin, cisplatin, and paclitaxel with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was significantly superior to cisplatin and doxorubicin, as shown by the following:[5,6][Level of evidence: 1iiDiv]

Response rate was 57% with the three-drug regimen, compared with 34% with the cisplatin and doxorubicin regimen.

PFS was 8.3 months with the three-drug regimen, compared with 5.3 months with the cisplatin and doxorubicin regimen.

OS was 15.3 months with the three-drug regimen, compared with 12.3 months with the cisplatin and doxorubicin regimen.

Given the toxicity and limited efficacy of these regimens, other treatment options have been widely sought. Several observational studies [7,8] and phase II studies [9,10,11,12] suggest clinical activity with the combination of platinum chemotherapy and paclitaxel in patients with endometrial cancer and measurable disease either after primary surgery or at recurrence.

The GOG protocol GOG-0209 (NCT000063999) is a noninferiority trial comparing the combination of paclitaxel, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (TAP) with G-CSF to carboplatin and paclitaxel.[13]

The interim results, currently available in abstract form, show that the combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel was not inferior to TAP and have led to the use of carboplatin and paclitaxel as the standard for adjuvant treatment of stages III and IV disease.

The use of cisplatin and doxorubicin compared with whole-abdominal radiation therapy was studied in a trial of patients with stage III or IV disease with residual tumors smaller than 2 cm and no parenchymal organ involvement.[14][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

The GOG-108 trial of ifosfamide with or without cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with measurable advanced or recurrent carcinosarcomas demonstrated a higher response rate (54% vs. 34%) and longer PFS on the combination arm (6 months vs. 4 months), but there was no significant improvement in survival (9 months vs. 8 months).[15][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

The follow-up GOG-0161 (NCT00003128) study utilized 3-day ifosfamide regimens (instead of the more-toxic 5-day regimen in the preceding study) for the control and ifosfamide combined with paclitaxel (with G-CSF starting on day 4) for the study arm.[16]

In this study, 52% of 179 evaluable patients had recurrent disease; 18% had stage III disease; and 30% had stage IV disease. In addition, there were imbalances between the treatment arms with respect to the sites of disease and the use of prior radiation therapy, and 30 patients were excluded for wrong pathology.

A phase II trial evaluated carboplatin with paclitaxel in patients with stage III, stage IV, or recurrent carcinosarcoma.[17] After noting a favorable response rate, the GOG activated GOG-0261 (NCT00954174), a randomized phase III trial of carboplatin with paclitaxel versus ifosfamide with paclitaxel. This study is closed to accrual, and results are awaited.

Chemotherapy and radiation therapy

Patients with inoperable disease caused by tumor that extends to the pelvic wall may be treated with a combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The usual approach for radiation therapy is to use a combination of intracavitary and external-beam radiation therapy.[18,19]

For patients with localized recurrences (pelvic and paraaortic lymph nodes) or distant metastases in selected sites, radiation therapy may be an effective palliative therapy. Pelvic radiation therapy may be curative in pure vaginal recurrence when no previous radiation therapy has been used.

Hormone therapy

Progesterone and estrogen hormone receptors are commonly found in endometrial carcinoma tissues. Response to hormone therapy is correlated with the presence and level of hormone receptors and the degree of tumor differentiation.[20] Patients with tumors that are positive for estrogen and progesterone receptors respond best to progestin therapy.

When distant metastases, especially pulmonary metastases, are present, hormonal therapy is indicated. Patients who are not candidates for either surgery or radiation therapy may be treated with progestational agents, the most common hormonal treatment. Progestational agents produce good antitumor responses in 15% to 30% of patients. These responses are associated with significant improvement in survival.[20]

A receptor-poor status may predict a poor response to progestins and a better response to cytotoxic chemotherapy.[22]

Other hormonal agents have shown benefit in treating endometrial cancer. Tamoxifen (20 mg bid) yields a response rate of 20% in patients who do not respond to standard progesterone therapy.[23]

Aromatase inhibitors have also been evaluated for the treatment of advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer, although they yield lower response rates than progestational agents.[24]

Biologic therapy

Several biologic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of endometrial cancer.

Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors.

Endometrial cancers often show alterations in the AKT-PI3K pathway, making mTOR inhibitors an attractive choice for clinical study in patients with metastatic or recurrent disease. Phase II studies of single-agent everolimus [25] and ridaforolimus [26,27] have predominantly shown disease stabilization. A phase II study of the combination of everolimus and letrozole showed a response rate of 32%.[28][Level of evidence: 3iiiDiv]

Bevazicumab.

Bevacizumab was utilized as a single agent in a phase II trial; the overall response rate was 13.5%.[29][Level of evidence: 3iiiDiv]

All patients with advanced disease should be considered for clinical trials that evaluate single-agent or combination therapy for this disease.

Studies of treatment failure patterns have found a high rate of distant metastases in the upper abdomen and in extra-abdominal sites.[31] For this reason, patients with stage III disease may be candidates for innovative clinical trials.

Treatment options under clinical evaluation for stage IV endometrial cancer include the following agents:

Paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without metformin in stages III, IV, and recurrent endometrial cancer (GOG-0286B [NCT02065687]).

Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.

Changes to This Summary (01 / 19 / 2018)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

General Information About Endometrial Cancer

Updated statistics with estimated new cases and deaths for 2018 (cited American Cancer Society as reference 1).

Added the Risk Factors for Endometrial Cancer list.

This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® - NCI's Comprehensive Cancer Database pages.

About This PDQ Summary

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of endometrial cancer. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians who care for cancer patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

be discussed at a meeting,

be cited with text, or

replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Endometrial Cancer Treatment are:

Leslie R. Boyd, MD (New York University Medical Center)

Franco M. Muggia, MD (New York University Medical Center)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website's Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as "NCI's PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary]."

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either "standard" or "under clinical evaluation." These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website's Email Us.

PeaceHealth endeavors to provide comprehensive health care information, however some topics in this database describe services and procedures not offered by our providers or within our facilities because they do not comply with, nor are they condoned by, the ethics policies of our organization.

This information does not replace the advice of a doctor. Healthwise, Incorporated disclaims any warranty or liability for your use of this information. Your use of this information means that you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Learn how we develop our content.

Healthwise, Healthwise for every health decision, and the Healthwise logo are trademarks of Healthwise, Incorporated.